On August 19, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") issued an order addressing various motions in the following cases in which Sable Offshore Corp. ("Sable" or the "Company") is a party, a real party in interest, or is otherwise interested: United States of America, et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline L.P., et al (2:20-cv-02415) ("U.S. v. Plains"), State of California v. Chris Wright, et al. (2:26-cv-03396) ("California v. Wright"), Sable Offshore Corp., et al. v. Armando Quintero (2:26-cv-02739) (the "Sable v. Quintero"), and Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, et al. (2:26-cv-05242) ("CBD v. CDFFP").
In U.S. v. Plains, the Court granted the United States’ motion to modify the 2020 consent decree signed by the parties to the litigation (the "Consent Decree") by substituting the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration ("PHMSA") for the California Office of the State Fire Marshal ("OSFM") as the regulatory authority overseeing pipeline operations and dismissing Plains All American Pipeline L.P. from the Consent Decree. Further, the Court granted, in part, California’s motion to enforce the Consent Decree, finding that Sable violated the Consent Decree by restarting operations without OSFM authorization. However, the Court declined to grant the requested injunctive relief ordering Sable to shut down the onshore segments of the Santa Ynez Pipeline System ("SYPS"), finding the Company is no longer in violation of the Consent Decree given PHMSA approved the Restart Plan, and instead, imposed a penalty of $1.449 million on the Company. The Court also denied the United States’ motion to terminate the Consent Decree.
In U.S. v. Wright, the Court denied plaintiff California’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Pipeline Capacity Prioritization and Allocation Order (the "DPA Order") issued by United States Secretary of Energy Chris Wright pursuant to delegated authority of the Defense Production Act. The Court found that California failed to demonstrate "even serious questions on the merits…" of the validity of the DPA Order. On August 20, 2026, the State of California filed notice of appeal of the Court’s order denying the motion for preliminary injunction and stay.
In Sable v. Quintero, the Court declared that the DPA Order bars the California Department of Parks and Recreation from bringing any legal action to prevent Sable from complying with the DPA Order by operating the onshore portions of the SYPS. The Court’s declaratory judgment was entered as a matter of law and the case is now closed. According to the Court’s order, the Court’s declaration is also dispositive in the parallel case, California Department of Parks and Recreation v. Sable Offshore Corp., et al. (2:26-cv-02946), alleging trespass by the Company and the Court invited Sable to file a motion for summary judgment in that proceeding. On August 21, 2026, the defendant filed notice of appeal of the Court’s order.
In CBD v. CDFFP, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. However, the Court "note[d] that, pursuant to this Order and the doctrine of collateral estoppel, due to the preemptive authority of the DPA Order, a state court may not impose or enforce state laws that might burden Sable from complying with the DPA Order. Also, to the extent that the state court case relates to now-modified portions of the Consent Decree, those issues are now moot."